The title is from a new FiveThirtyEight article discussing the impact Comey’s letter had on the election. Nate Silver, the author, notes that there were many factors impacting Clinton’s loss, many of which may have been bigger factors but that they were hard to quantify. He feels that the Comey letter was sufficient to tip the balance just enough to let Trump win.
From the article:
I don’t know if Comey letter did anything (I think its effect was minimal, mostly reinforcing the already-set attitudes) but I love the Democrats’ concentrating on it as the cause of Clinton’s loss. Thank you Nate Silver (and Hillary Clinton, yesterday).
When you’re explaining a very small difference with a great many causes, any one of them can be said to be responsible.
I’m not sure what good is done by focusing on Comey. After all, that wound was at least partially self-inflicted. By contrast, Clinton is not responsible at all for the wave of Russian-financed fake news attacking her on Trump’s behalf. Why not choose that factor?
Sure the letter hurt, but Clinton was her own worst enemy. She lost to a terrible candidate because she was a terrible candidate. She should have campaigned much more in the rust belt. She should have picked a better VP candidate. She should have come as clean as possible about the stupid overblown email server far earlier so the BS would blow over.
Given that the outcomes in these swing states were within the margins of error for the pre-Comey reveal polls, I don’t think any definitive, or even credibly speculative statements could be made about the influence that the announcement had on Clinton’s electoral challenges. The very fact that she was within such a slim margin in traditionally Democratic strongholds says much for Clinton’s lackluster appeal even to voters who should have been predisposed to cast in for any Democratic presidential candidate.
Or to put it another way, Hillary Clinton lost to a buffoonish, mendacious, disreputable reality television star with no political or public service experience who consistently failed to provide even a basic political platform to assess beyond “build a wall” and “drain the swamp”, aligned himself with Russian interests, and entered with enough personal scandal to sink any normal candidate to the depths of political hell. This was basically the best electoral opportunity for a Democratic presidential candidate since FDR vs. Hoover, and she blew it harder than a White House intern in so many ways that this issue (which she created by her ill-considered use of a private e-mail server to conduct official business) is just a drop in the proverbial bucket.
Stranger
Did you read the article? Guessing you didn’t because this is in the second paragraph:
He focuses on this because it is something he can measure.
Soooo, mostly Comey…??
If anything, Clinton’s polls in WI, at least, went up after Comey’s letter, and even though you could say that it was within MOE in some polls, it was at the very edge of MOE.
I know. And I am thankful to him. Anything to emphasize Comey’s letter is good, as I said.
Why would you think that poster was referring Nate Silver in that post and not the OP of this thread? And while the OP of this thread notes other reasons for the loss, this thread is still about Comey, and not any of those other reasons.
Not to mention that, even if you could travel back in time, you wouldn’t be able to change just one thing and nothing else. The idea that “if only such-and-such didn’t happen” is nonsense speculation. As I said in the other thread, you can’t just step on the butterfly and expect nothing else to change other than one more dead butterfly.
If it hadn’t been the e-mails they would have fixed on something else. (The Republicans, I talking about here.) This is why I’ve maintained that the Dems need to develop a counter-strategy to the whole monolithic GOP propaganda machine. I mean, it’s like, they all say the same things, often using the exact same words.
It basically started during Bill’s presidency, when they realized they could sell books to the rubes, make a ton of money and tear down the opposition at the same time. Win, win, right? Then they did it again with Kerry (Unfit to Command) with the whole Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Puppies thing. And when Barack came along, it was Katie bar the door.
And regardless of whom the Dems nominate in 2020, they’ll do it again. You won’t be able to find a candidate that they won’t dig up something on, because even if you do, they’ll just invent something. They’ll do it again until it doesn’t work anymore and, being Republicans, they’ll even do it for a few cycles after it stops working.
The media always likes to hype up a potential “October Surprise” every presidential election, but really, who hasn’t made up their mind about who their candidate is a week or 10 days before the election?
Were there really a significant number of voters who said to themselves, “I voted for Hilary in 2008, and going to vote for her again in 2016, I want to continue the Obama legacy, but wait!, the FBI is looking into something! I’m voting for Trump!!”
The private email server was already known to be an issue. Emails on the lap top of Carlos Danger/Anthony Weiner was a stupid lack of security. And the FBI was finding that some of this stuff on the Weiner was classified and should not be there. Not because they were trying to find dirt on Hillary, they were investigating Anthony Weiner. Podesta campaign related “hacked” emails were revealing. And all that the so called ‘Russian hackers’ did was to find some of this stuff. Stuff that never would have been revealed with a more secure rather than private server. It wasn’t something just made up by hackers.
Anyone following the election cycle, no matter which candidate, is not waiting until the last week to make up their mind. Anyone who wasn’t born yesterday knows that whatever comes up in the last week of the campaign is a misdirection, not something to base your vote upon.
Hillary would be president if she hadn’t tried to circumvent security by using her own server. But she has always been about control, and that insistence on control is what really cost her the election. And that control is why she now must find blame other than in herself.
I was responding to:
“…I love the Democrats’ concentrating on it as the cause of Clinton’s loss.”
As I read it the implication is that the democrats focus on this to the exclusion of all else suggesting Clinton had no other faults worth noting.
That is not the case. I did not make that case nor did Nate Silver make that case.
This is exactly the same as what happens in sports coverage: a team’s loss is blamed on one particular thing: a referee’s bad call, a fumble, an interception, a failure to make a shot… and the dozens of others things which happen in the game are ignored.
I think Silver is making the case that if you could go back in time and change just one thing that stopping the Comey letter would be sufficient for Clinton to eke out a win.
I think we all understand that barring an omniscient being or multiple universes and time travel to split-test this we can never know for sure. But Silver is all about playing the odds and in his estimation the odds are the Comey letter was enough to tip the balance to Trump.
That’s unlikely, of course.
What *is *likely, though, is a lot of people just didn’t vote. The constant Hillary trashing didn’t change voters from (D) to (R), it changed them from (D) to (Not Going to Bother Leaving the House).
That’s right guys, the fact that Clinton was the first presidential candidate since 1972 to make zero appearances in Wisconsin wasn’t at all what caused her to lose the state, it was all Comey’s doing.
Yes, most of the posts in this thread are busily attacking the straw man argument
**
**
The only trouble is, no one on the planet is making that straw man argument. The efforts to knock it down do nothing but make the knockers look foolish.
Gee, I dunno.